Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add dlib.

[Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au>]

On 17/08/16 13:24, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
>
>
> On 17/08/16 09:45, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:31:11AM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17/08/16 06:47, Leo Famulari wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:45:16AM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
>>>>> I initially made this package on a foreign distro without "lapack" in
>>>>> inputs and have verified that dropping LAPACK makes the tests pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also found some other optional dependencies after digging around 
>>>>> the
>>>>> source, as well as a recommendation to disable/enable asserts:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://dlib.net/dlib/config.h.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben, Leo: Can you try the following patch and see if that works 
>>>>> for you?
>>>> Yes, this patch builds for me.
>>> Me too, although it appeared non-deterministic. I'm afraid I haven't 
>>> time to
>>> see if this patch is suitable to push just now. Leo?
>> How did it appear non-deterministic to you?
> Just based on guix build --check:
>
> guix build: error: build failed: derivation 
> `/gnu/store/sxybcxw64q1ajzq6dysal75ffgq6238i-dlib-19.1.drv' may not be 
> deterministic: output 
> `/gnu/store/il57dcii4pzii11zlixjjxxxw699bg5x-dlib-19.1' differs
>
> I'm actually not sure, why does it say "may not be deterministic"? If 
> it builds twice and the second version is different, doesn't that mean 
> it is definitely not deterministic by counter-example, unless there 
> has been some leakage into the build container?
>
> I also tried building it with #parallel-build? #f and #parallel-tests? 
> #f. It worked in the first round but failed the second.
I wasn't clear here. This was with lapack uncommented out. Subsequently 
I tested with both these flags #f and lapack commented out, then it was 
deterministic with --rounds=2. Let me know if you want any further 
testing done.